New bill possibly to replace RTA

[Busjack]

Predictably at the May Pace Board meeting was that the bills would not be moving in the spring session (which ends May 24), but the legislators will be using the summer to get educated on them, and, of course Kwasneski and others will be lobbying that the priority isn't consolidation., but funding and services being responsive to communities.

[Busjack]

It's widely reported that the Senate Transportation Committee is holding public hearings on the Metropolitan Mobility Authority Act. But for those who are interested, I suggest leaving a comment on State Senator Ram Villivalam's Legislative Policy Proposal comment page.

[Busjack]

Rich Miller in the Sun-Timeson the politics at the hearing. As predicted, Carter repeated 'it's just funding," while Kirk Dillard, RTA board chairman, seemed receptive to the bills. Somehow, city politicians think this is a suburban takeover of the CTA, even though the 3 lead sponsors are from the city. Villivalam's office is on the Chicago side of Devon Ave.; his district includes Forest Glen, North Park, West Ridge, Park Ridge, Morton Grove, Niles, Lincolnwood and Skokie, according to his site.  Eva-Dina Delgado's district is roughly Logan Square to North-Harlem to Dunning according to her map. Kam Buckner 's office is in Bronzeville.

[Tcmetro]

With Metra's new focus on expanding service and Pace eliminating most bus routes that don't connect to the CTA (excepting the satellite city networks), there's more and more reason to integrate the three agencies.

The article also alludes to how the CTA blocked better agency integration with the Cook County proposal to reduce transfer penalty and improve service on the Metra Electric and connecting CTA bus lines.

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

With Metra's new focus on expanding service and Pace eliminating most bus routes that don't connect to the CTA (excepting the satellite city networks), there's more and more reason to integrate the three agencies.

The article also alludes to how the CTA blocked better agency integration with the Cook County proposal to reduce transfer penalty and improve service on the Metra Electric and connecting CTA bus lines.

On your first point, maybe there's a problem that Pace and CTA each have its own Vision projects, although with better cooperation in the past 5 years, and, except for the CTA Connection and Pulse/Express routes, Pace seems to be going in the community transit direction, maybe that's not the problem it once was.

Your second point basically gets back to the 20-year-old Gray Line debate and what agency was going to pay for it, and Metra having only a commuter focus. Cook County ended up paying for the pilot, but now CTA is complaining that it diverted its ridership,

If you want to talk integration, I said about 5 years after that that if the riders really want the Gray Line, there should be an intermodal transfer station at 71st and Jeffrey, and kill the 14. In that that didn't happen indicated to me that there was no demand for it.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

On your first point, maybe there's a problem that Pace and CTA each have its own Vision projects, although with better cooperation in the past 5 years, and, except for the CTA Connection and Pulse/Express routes, Pace seems to be going in the community transit direction, maybe that's not the problem it once was.

Your second point basically gets back to the 20-year-old Gray Line debate and what agency was going to pay for it, and Metra having only a commuter focus. Cook County ended up paying for the pilot, but now CTA is complaining that it diverted its ridership,

If you want to talk integration, I said about 5 years after that that if the riders really want the Gray Line, there should be an intermodal transfer station at 71st and Jeffrey, and kill the 14. In that that didn't happen indicated to me that there was no demand for it.

I think the core issue is really to be able to use the VENTRA card seamlessly on all three systems.   While CTA and Pace are seemless, using VENTRA for Metra is a bit quirky.  Though Metra has simplified its zones,  it is still a bit quirky.   Unlike CTA abd Pace where you can still use a physical card, you really need to use use the phone abd rge app for Metra.  

If I am not mistaken,  the Metro Card in New York can be used on the MRA and the LIRR.  I would think it could be used on PATH,  but I would have to look into that. 

UPDATE:  LIRR accepts NetriCards at certain stations, between Flushing and downtown.   PATH accepts MetroCard for single ride payments ( no unlimited passes) privuded there is sufficient stored value ib the card.

Maybe this works better if Metra ibstalls vending machines at all of their stations and alliw the Ventra card to be used as an option for payment or outfit all conductors with mobile card readers.   I think that an MMA would require something similar to this,  so if the three agencies can figure it out without Legislation interference , there is no need for a superagency. 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Maybe this works better if Metra ibstalls vending machines at all of their stations and alliw the Ventra card to be used as an option for payment or outfit all conductors with mobile card readers.   I think that an MMA would require something similar to this,  so if the three agencies can figure it out without Legislation interference , there is no need for a superagency. 

Section 4.01 of the Act says that the MMA has the power to "(7) plan, procure, and operate an integrated fare collection system."  Section 4.05 says: "(b) The Authority shall develop and implement a regionally coordinated and consolidated fare collection system" and "(g) The Authority must develop and make available for use by riders a universal fare instrument that may be used interchangeably on all public transportation funded by the Authority."

Maybe what you mention is what is contemplated, but it sounds like the Metro Card can only be used in the local zone. Metra has said that even if the MMA implements an integrated fare collection system, it still wants conductors as a customer interface. We discussed a long time ago other systems  that used some version of Cubic cards on  regional rail, but without enclosed paid areas, no one could figure out how that would work.

But I certainly disagree with your conclusion that if the 3 service boards could agree on this, that would eliminate the need for consolidation. For instance, while all three use something with the service mark "Ventra," you can't use the Ventra app to pay on CTA and Pace; there was the rigamarole of transfering value on the phone but still having to buy a card at a TVM (although someone said you could put the card in an Apple wallet). But more importantly, there are so many oversight problems at CTA and Metra and planning coordination problems involving all 3 that something has to be done. It's ridiculous that with regard to the latest fare pilot, it took four boards to approve it, or that intergovernmental agreements were needed for construction of the Harvey and Homewood transit hubs.

 

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Section 4.01 of the Act says that the MMA has the power to "(7) plan, procure, and operate an integrated fare collection system."  Section 4.05 says: "(b) The Authority shall develop and implement a regionally coordinated and consolidated fare collection system" and "(g) The Authority must develop and make available for use by riders a universal fare instrument that may be used interchangeably on all public transportation funded by the Authority."

Maybe what you mention is what is contemplated, but it sounds like the Metro Card can only be used in the local zone. Metra has said that even if the MMA implements an integrated fare collection system, it still wants conductors as a customer interface. We discussed a long time ago other systems  that used some version of Cubic cards on  regional rail, but without enclosed paid areas, no one could figure out how that would work.

But I certainly disagree with your conclusion that if the 3 service boards could agree on this, that would eliminate the need for consolidation. For instance, while all three use something with the service mark "Ventra," you can't use the Ventra app to pay on CTA and Pace; there was the rigamarole of transfering value on the phone but still having to buy a card at a TVM (although someone said you could put the card in an Apple wallet). But more importantly, there are so many oversight problems at CTA and Metra and planning coordination problems involving all 3 that something has to be done. It's ridiculous that with regard to the latest fare pilot, it took four boards to approve it, or that intergovernmental agreements were needed for construction of the Harvey and Homewood transit hubs.

 

I would imagine that the service boards are all against the MMA proposal.   I think the majoriry of riders on CTA, Metra, and Pace could really care less about MMA.  The funny thing is that the RTA, which already has oversight of the three service boards, should be the agency in charge of regional fare integration, equipment purchases for the agencies in addition to the financial budget oversight that it currently has.   How much money could have possibly been saved if bus procurements for CTA and Pace had been made by the RTA?   Could Ventra possibly have been better if under RTA control rather than CTA?  Who knows.  But maybe the solution is to empower the RTA to do what it was really created for  rather than a watered down budget approval stamper.  To paraphrase someone,  how about enforcing the existing laws instead of creating new laws?

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, artthouwill said:

But maybe the solution is to empower the RTA to do what it was really created for  rather than a watered down budget approval stamper.  To paraphrase someone,  how about enforcing the existing laws instead of creating new laws?

Problem is that the RTA was not empowered to do what you said in your last sentence. First, the RTA Act left CTA alone, except for budgeting requirements, which CTA management ignored. Read Section 2.01 of the RTA Act.  The RTA has certain planning, coordination, funding and financial powers. However, "The Service Boards shall, on a continuing basis determine the level, nature and kind of public transportation which should be provided for the metropolitan region in order to meet the plans, goals, objectives, and standards adopted by the [RT]Authority." Also, Section 2.04 says "...the Service Board shall provide for the level and nature of fares or charges..."  2.04(d) says that in 2013, the RTA was to set standards for interagency transfer fares, but it is up to the service boards to approve them. One thing the RTA has the obligation to do by 2015 is to implement a regional fare collection system. Unless calling everything Ventra, this doesn't seem to have been enforced, given the different Metra system and that CTA and Pace had a joint farebox procurement, but CTA then went its separate way.

If we go back about 17 years, when CTA was overrunning Pace territory, my correspondence with my state representative was over Section 2.12b, which in the first draft said that at the request of a service board, the RTA Executive Director may intervene in a dispute with another service board or a [contract] agency. I wrote back that "may" should be "shall." Instead some clown in the General Assembly inserted "upon the affirmative vote of 9 of the then Directors of the Authority," a poison pill assuring that the RTA never would. It took financial distress resulting in the Crowd Reduction Plan to do it, and CTA would not reveal that it was coordinating with Pace. If this doesn't demonstrate that the RTA is a toothless tiger, nothing does.

The major benefits I see from consolidation are:

• No disputes over the funding formula, because there is only one agency (CTA is too dumb or entrenched to realize this).
• No need for intergovernmental agreements with itself.
• True integration of services.
• Various parts of Article 2 of the RTA Act that effectively make the RTA subject to the whims of the service boards would be gone.
• Maybe a unified fare collection system (although, as I indicated above, one was mandated).

 

 

 

[Busjack]

Rich Miller column with the statement: "House Speaker Chris Welch ... said his working group tasked with revamping mass transit was 'really just beginning their work,' so that issue, as expected, would “definitely not” be ready for November.“

[Busjack]

Although I don't have much use for polls, this one cited in the Sen-Times shows 2 for 1 support for the MMA Act, even more when they brought up lobbying expenses. Of course, not the entrenched interests on the four boards. But Redden didn't mention that MBTA and SEPTA are unified agencies.

[BlueArrowProductions]

Much like the New York MTA taking over NYCT and the commuter railroads, only without Robert Moses' Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority as a steady revenue stream.